The guys behavior with the car does qualify as armed according to their own guidelines, written…

The Guardian has its methodology and we have ours. Ours is published here. I cannot comment on whether the actor would be considered armed by their standards. I can say that the person was indisputably dangerous, because his actions were reckless and ultimately resulted in the injury and serious injury to three others. I do believe that the larger issue is the journalistic responsibility to report truthfully the facts as they are known. For The Counted to get so many details incorrect so often is troubling to me. Is it possible that this multinational giant of a newspaper hires reporters who don’t actually understand the difference between a robbery and a burglary; between a jail and a prison; between a police officer and a corrections officer? I just cannot believe that. Short of ignorance, I would state flatly that any reporter worth the title has a professional and ethical responsibility to look things up and be certain before leveling accusations. It is noteworthy that, so often, when the Guardian’s The Counted staff makes a mistake, it is in favor of the argument that the police are at fault. To that I would point out that I have rarely, if ever, seen a mistake that would tend to cast the police in a more positive light. This is possibly accidental.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.